Last week, the House Agriculture and Forest Products Committee unanimously voted to create a state-sanctioned process to grow hemp, despite federal regulations essentially prohibiting the action.

Under the bill, hemp is defined as Cannabis Sativa with a tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, concentration of 0.3 percent or less. The low-potency form of marijuana is touted in the bill for its long-standing market presence and strength in industries like textiles, clothing, bio-fuel, paper, cosmetics and more.

Rep. Teo Zagar, D-Barnard, supports the bill. “The governor likes to say we have an agricultural renaissance happening, and I think this bill could accelerate that,” Zagar said. “Hemp is an amazingly versatile, valuable and productive crop that could serve a number of needs in Vermont and give farmers a bunch of new tools.”

The new provision, however, runs afoul of federal regulations, and House members say Congress must step in to legalize hemp.

“We’ve got to send a message,” said Rep. Carolyn Partridge, D-Windham, who chairs the House Agriculture Committee. “This is the kind of message I think will mean something to the federal delegation, and Sen. Leahy’s committee has a hemp bill before them.”

In January, Sen. Patrick Leahy wrote to the Drug Enforcement Administration asking for information about the way in which the agency regulates hemp. Last week, Leahy received a response from Eric Akers, deputy chief of the DEA, reiterating that cannabis is an illegal, controlled substance.

Akers wrote that he couldn’t tell the senator how many people had sought to cultivate cannabis for industrial purposes because the administration doesn’t track the information. Since 2000, three of eight applicants were granted permission to grow hemp, according to Akers, and one of the registrations is pending until “required security measures” are taken. The other four applicants were denied because they would not install the feds’ security measures.

“DEA believes the current regulatory framework governing these types of applications … remains adequate,” Akers concluded. “In this vein, please note that even those cannabis plants that have a relatively low THC concentration provide a substantial source of psychoactive material that would be readily exploited by drug seekers — for example, manufacturers of ‘hash oil’ — if inadequate security measures were tolerated.”

The registration process that the State of Vermont would impose under the House bill would be much more lax than the federal law. It would require the grower to submit to the Secretary of Agriculture his or her name and address, a statement that the cannabis variety does not exceed the state potency threshold, and the location and acreage of the hemp parcels. The bill would give the Agriculture Secretary the power to leverage an annual $25 registration fee for administration purposes.

The Vermont registration literature would also come with the following caveat: “Federal prosecution for growing hemp in violation of federal law may include criminal penalties, forfeiture of property, and loss of access to federal agricultural benefits, including agricultural loans, conservation programs, and insurance programs.”

One person who might be willing to risk such penalties is Rep. Will Stevens, I-Shoreham, who owns Golden Russet Farm.

“I’ll look into the option as part of my management plan,” Stevens said. “I’d be happy to look at it as part of our crop rotation. If hemp fits into that, fine. And if we can figure out ways to harvest it and market it, even better.”

Robb Kidd, an organizer for the advocacy group Rural Vermont, said he knows numerous farmers who are interested in the prospect. Rural Vermont has been advocating for the legalization of industrial hemp production for almost a decade. He says the bill that passed out of the House Agriculture Committee is the group’s “ideal, dream bill.”

“Times have changed dramatically,” he said. “Everybody has realized the economic opportunity. They have realized we need to get this moving, and the federal government delay is not helping.”

Andrew Stein is the energy and health care reporter for VTDigger. He is a 2012 fellow at the First Amendment Institute and previously worked as a reporter and assistant online editor at the Addison County Independent, where he helped the publication win top state and New England awards for its website. Read more

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy

VTDigger.org does not share specific information about our readers with other entities. Email addresses we collect through our subscription list and comment submissions are kept private.

We use Google analytics to generate aggregated data regarding the size and geographic distribution of our readership. This information helps us gauge how many readers come to the website and what towns they live in. It does not include addresses or other identifying characteristics about our readers.

1000

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy

VTDigger.org does not share specific information about our readers with other entities. Email addresses we collect through our subscription list and comment submissions are kept private.

We use Google analytics to generate aggregated data regarding the size and geographic distribution of our readership. This information helps us gauge how many readers come to the website and what towns they live in. It does not include addresses or other identifying characteristics about our readers.

Sort by: newest | oldest | most voted

Mike Kerin

3 years 7 months ago

Hemp doesn’t have the same properties of pot. It has many uses and would make a good cash crop for Vermont farmers. It is not a drug, so the DEA should not be involved in any way.

0

|

0

ReplyHide Replies ∧

Carl Marcinkowski

3 years 7 months ago

The U.S. is the only industrialized nation in the world that does not recognize the value of industrial hemp and permit its production. Stubborn or what? I’ll take ‘what’, meaning money from competing industries such as timber, cotton and many others. It’s all about payola.

0

|

0

ReplyHide Replies ∧

Rob E

3 years 7 months ago

I agree Carl. Sad part is at one point in history our founding fathers did recognize its importance as a crop. Just one example of how as things change its not always for the better.

Making hemp illegal is just another example of our ridiculous and hypocritical drug laws regarding marijuana. The “reefer madness” attitude of the DEA and others in Washington is truly mind boggling.

0

|

0

ReplyHide Replies ∧

Fred Woogmaster

3 years 7 months ago

How much has the Federal legal status of hemp been challenged? I have been hoping forever that some smart,courageous governor would come along, armed with a super smart Attorney General, and find a viable legal route for a challenge to this absurd classification. What WOULD it take? It seems that our congressional delegation can not be relied upon for such a challenge.

0

|

0

ReplyHide Replies ∧

Bonnie MacBrien

3 years 7 months ago

Same old, same old…never let sound science get in the way of making stupid “drug” laws! DEA wake up!!

0

|

0

ReplyHide Replies ∧

Roger Hill

3 years 7 months ago

We are stuck with ideas that originated from old white men that are stubbornly carried through. Time to defeat these stodgy stubborn people on all scales.

It’s really sickening how artificial so many laws are on the books and their protectorate need be challenged on all levels.

0

|

0

ReplyHide Replies ∧

Kevin Hunt

3 years 7 months ago

The DEA’s claim that someone is going to make ‘hash oil’ from industrial hemp is absurd. Hemp contains a minimum 2:1 ratio of CBD:THC, which means that no matter how hard an amateur chemist tries to concentrate the plant material, it will not produce a high.

I can’t believe that we waste our tax dollars on the DEA. It’s time to de-fund them.

0

|

0

ReplyHide Replies ∧

Fred Woogmaster

3 years 7 months ago

State produced hemp, on state land, especially on prison property, would produce sufficient revenue to fund the entire ‘corrections system’.

“Making hash oil from industrial hemp” is truly absurd.

0

|

0

ReplyHide Replies ∧

Fred Woogmaster

3 years 7 months ago

Just a thought: The headache medication industry would benefit enormously if people smoked hemp. I understand from ‘reliable sources’ that all you GET is a headache. I can imagine the glossy tv ad – the one that comes on just after the one that promotes smoking hemp – (the pharmaceutical ad)- “Gotta hemp headache? Get your doctor to prescribe Rumstab, brought to you by GD Searle.”